These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Incursion ISK
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-02-04 17:58:47 UTC
Andski wrote:
remove incursions from high-sec

problem solved, you revitalize lowsec and remove a substantial fountain of risk-free ISK

Roll
Degren wrote:
I'm curious why this was just glossed over. Sounds pretty damn solid. Rewards could even be boosted to acknowledge you'd probably need a defense crew on top of the incursion-tacklers.

Because it is as stupid an idea as moving lvl 4's to low - sec always has been. (2008 wants it's whine back).
Andski wrote:
you're totally missing the point or willfully disregarding it

get in a covops and head to a lowsec incursion system and see how fast the sites disappear

then head to a high-sec incursion system and see how fast the sites disappear

let's be generous and assume that 75% of that figure is from high-sec incursions - that's 227b pumped into the economy with concord protection

if you have a hard time realizing why the risk/reward equation is absolutely broken in high-sec you're probably a simian

As per CCP (from the CSM meeting minutes) - some of those incursion runners were running missions, so that % is a wash as well. So the amount that is coming in, vice what used to come in, is less again (because *all people running incursions - *used to run missions = new amount coming in).


As for plex prices, that's *just* from incursions? What about supply and demand?


What if the melt down of the Real World economy finally caught up to Eve, and there are fewer people *selling* plexes/GTC's and the same number of people buying them (in game) - price would go up, right?


What if the number of individuals selling them (and the volume of sales) has stayed the same, but as people age in the game, more want to pay for their subs with isk? More demand, same supply, price goes up, right?


What if the number of people selling plex has gone up, *BUT* a bunch of players returned and increased demand and supply has remained the same, price would go up, right?


What if it's a combination of all of the above, and other things we've not even guessed at?


I *don't* make the above statements from *any* knowledge of Plex market statistics, I don't know if volume has gone up, down or sideways.

Just that *incursions* aren't the "ONLY" possible explanation for plex prices - other (logical) explanations do exist.


Bye the way, the people who want to be in 0.0 (within a significant % point) are in nullsec, and the people who don't want to live in nullsec aren't. You actually cannot keep people out of 0.0 space (regardless of propaganda to the contrary) if they want to get there. It's just that over the years, null-sec/low-sec/hi-sec have kept more or less the same % of players. WH's will (in my opinion) continue to grow, because WH's aren't null/low/hi...



Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2012-02-04 18:29:23 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Andski wrote:
remove incursions from high-sec

problem solved, you revitalize lowsec and remove a substantial fountain of risk-free ISK

Roll
Degren wrote:
I'm curious why this was just glossed over. Sounds pretty damn solid. Rewards could even be boosted to acknowledge you'd probably need a defense crew on top of the incursion-tacklers.

Because it is as stupid an idea as moving lvl 4's to low - sec always has been. (2008 wants it's whine back).






Why is it stupid?

The amout of isk people are making in these things is far too high for laughable risk they face. Nerfing high sec payouts to be more in line while keeping the current rates in low sec would be a good thing for the game as it gives people a good reason to go into low sec.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-02-04 18:48:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Why is it stupid?

The amout of isk people are making in these things is far too high for laughable risk they face. Nerfing high sec payouts to be more in line while keeping the current rates in low sec would be a good thing for the game as it gives people a good reason to go into low sec.

Because it's never been proven that *lowering* payouts in hi-sec will achieve the desired result (if, in fact, the desired result is more players in 0.0) - it's just been "assumed". Raising the payouts in null (anoms pre-nerf) were (sorta) proven to bring *some* out, but I've never seen any numbers on daily activity pre/post nerf to actually confirm that people *left* hi-sec (other than the entirely apocryphal "we left because of ... " threads).

And the "far too high" is an assumption/opinion - again, inflation isn't out of control, CCP is pulling economic metrics monthly (as per CSM minutes) and players were "interdicting" hi-sec incursions, limiting payouts since the last full set of numbers came out (csm minutes).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#64 - 2012-02-04 18:56:08 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why is it stupid?

The amout of isk people are making in these things is far too high for laughable risk they face. Nerfing high sec payouts to be more in line while keeping the current rates in low sec would be a good thing for the game as it gives people a good reason to go into low sec.

Because it's never been proven that *lowering* payouts in hi-sec will achieve the desired result (if, in fact, the desired result is more players in 0.0) - it's just been "assumed". Raising the payouts in null (anoms pre-nerf) were (sorta) proven to bring *some* out, but I've never seen any numbers on daily activity pre/post nerf to actually confirm that people *left* hi-sec (other than the entirely apocryphal "we left because of ... " threads).

And the "far too high" is an assumption/opinion - again, inflation isn't out of control, CCP is pulling economic metrics monthly (as per CSM minutes) and players were "interdicting" hi-sec incursions, limiting payouts since the last full set of numbers came out (csm minutes).


When an activity in high sec makes twice as much isk as 0.0 and lowsec we have a problem. This is why PI was changed to make low sec and 0.0 better options than just staying in high sec.

High sec should never offer the same rewards as low sec and 0.0 do as people will always pick the safest option. Nerfing high sec payouts back will mean people will want to go into low sec to get the massive payouts while at the same time the cowardly still get to enjoy this content but not make as much.
Valei Khurelem
#65 - 2012-02-04 19:01:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
If you made 0.0 less about ganking people and more about skill ( getting past warp bubbles in a shuttle is hilarious but not practical if you want to make ISK as a newbie sorry 0.0 people, don't even get me started on how impractical training for covert ops frigates is when you've just started ) then you wouldn't have the issue of people wanting to stay in high sec in the first place, people stay in high sec because they know that going out of it is a rigged game pitted against them. CONCORD are like the 0.0 alliances that keep them safer but they are far more efficient, cost less, they don't try to scam them of all their stuff and genuinely try to work for them rather than just use them for free ISK.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
applejacks34 Applecrack
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#66 - 2012-02-04 19:06:15 UTC
Why do you make a post about this?! ITS going to get nerfed NOW!
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#67 - 2012-02-04 19:06:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dinsdale Pirannha
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why is it stupid?

The amout of isk people are making in these things is far too high for laughable risk they face. Nerfing high sec payouts to be more in line while keeping the current rates in low sec would be a good thing for the game as it gives people a good reason to go into low sec.

Because it's never been proven that *lowering* payouts in hi-sec will achieve the desired result (if, in fact, the desired result is more players in 0.0) - it's just been "assumed". Raising the payouts in null (anoms pre-nerf) were (sorta) proven to bring *some* out, but I've never seen any numbers on daily activity pre/post nerf to actually confirm that people *left* hi-sec (other than the entirely apocryphal "we left because of ... " threads).

And the "far too high" is an assumption/opinion - again, inflation isn't out of control, CCP is pulling economic metrics monthly (as per CSM minutes) and players were "interdicting" hi-sec incursions, limiting payouts since the last full set of numbers came out (csm minutes).


Asuri, give it up.
It is pointless to argue with these people.

They are ideologues, and any facts you bring up that call into question their warped view of reality are immediately discarded to be replaced with hyperbole, or outright lies.

And as for those with an agenda, basically the goon-like groups, forget it. They are adept liars and any distortion of the truth to further their goals is entirely acceptable, actually encouraged.

I am done trying to defend incursions. There are just too many stupid people or general griefers on these forums to battle them all.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2012-02-04 19:18:30 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why is it stupid?

The amout of isk people are making in these things is far too high for laughable risk they face. Nerfing high sec payouts to be more in line while keeping the current rates in low sec would be a good thing for the game as it gives people a good reason to go into low sec.

Because it's never been proven that *lowering* payouts in hi-sec will achieve the desired result (if, in fact, the desired result is more players in 0.0) - it's just been "assumed". Raising the payouts in null (anoms pre-nerf) were (sorta) proven to bring *some* out, but I've never seen any numbers on daily activity pre/post nerf to actually confirm that people *left* hi-sec (other than the entirely apocryphal "we left because of ... " threads).

And the "far too high" is an assumption/opinion - again, inflation isn't out of control, CCP is pulling economic metrics monthly (as per CSM minutes) and players were "interdicting" hi-sec incursions, limiting payouts since the last full set of numbers came out (csm minutes).


Asuri, give it up.
It is pointless to argue with these people.

They are ideologues, and any facts you bring up that call into question their warped view of reality are immediately discarded to be replaced with hyperbole, or outright lies.

And as for those with an agenda, basically the goon-like groups, forget it. They are adept liars and any distortion of the truth to further their goals is entirely acceptable, actually encouraged.

I am done trying to defend incursions. There are just too many stupid people or general griefers on these forums to battle them all.


So said the minority when he found out he was in the minority.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-02-04 19:34:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
baltec1 wrote:
When an activity in high sec makes twice as much isk as 0.0 and lowsec we have a problem. This is why PI was changed to make low sec and 0.0 better options than just staying in high sec.


Well, let me know when "an activity in hi-sec makes twice as much isk as 0.0 and lowsec" - I'll get right on that. Incursions pay better in low/null than they do in hi-sec (so far as I know - willing to be proved wrong).

Hi-sec exploration/missions/anoms/ded complexes demonstrably do *not* pay out twice as much as null sec/low-sec equivalents.

baltec1 wrote:
High sec should never offer the same rewards as low sec and 0.0 do as people will always pick the safest option. Nerfing high sec payouts back will mean people will want to go into low sec to get the massive payouts

A) Hi sec does not have the same rewards as 0.0/low-sec. Or better.
B) People will almost *always* pick the safer option, except that 10 - 15% who have continuously chosen to live full time in 0.0 over the years - the numbers (% of players living in 0.0/low-sec) have remained relatively stable (so far as I know) since I started playing.
baltec1 wrote:
the cowardly

Roll

Srsly... "cowardly"?

Roll
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Asuri, give it up.
It is pointless to argue with these people.

I will never "give it up" as you put it, because I'm not so much defending anything, as trying (years in, still trying) to learn about the game. The forums are a part of that.

I argued against the NPC corp tax because I said it would not accomplish what it set out to accomplish, and I don't believe it did. I argued against the anom nerf, because I *KNEW* it wouldn't accomplish it's goals and it didn't. I argued against (and am still against) moving lvl 4's to low-sec because it will not accomplish it's stated goals. And overall "nerfing" isk generating activities in hi-sec in favor of moving/re-aligning the "risk/reward" ratio to null/low sec won't achieve their stated goals (imho).

Because literally, you *cannot* keep someone out of 0.0 if they want to get there. Either solo or as part of a group. When they are ready, they go.

But it seems like the same absolute % of people have been a part of the null/low/hi split for the last 4 years that I know of (with the addition of WH's taking some small % of all three).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Rio Bravo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-04-22 05:32:56 UTC
What really burns the establishement (If I may call older null types that) is not incursions themselves. It's that they generally enjoy a skill point monopoly that does not diminish as time goes on. If you were a regular subscriber. People are talking alot about ISK inflation, but there is an under current. The under current is ISK generation becomes easier the older your toon gets, and doesn't slow down. The gap is enormous. The options open to a toon after a couple years is incredible for ISK faucets or whatever buzz words you want to throw around. Natural, but this is a game, a game with rules to keep it fun...For instance, why should OLDER players become so much more of an ISK faucet himself then relatively NEWER players. Just a different pespective on it

Incursions not only pays well, but does not take years to train for. You can have an operable incursion DPS or Logi ship within a couple months. It undermines the 'Might is right' and 'Cartel' philosophy of the PvPer and 'Land owning gentry' of null. They don't like it, and if they can't stop you, they whine to CCP about how the money a carebear makes isn't fair. After all, much of the psychology driving the game is feeling good about your accomplishments compared to another, or feeling good about imposing your will on someone else. This has to be measurable to have effect, the value of ISK is direct. Respect is also a currency. Killboards are an expression of that, as are some of the boastful, vulgar, and plagerized bio's I see out there, but I digress..
The resistance to incursions is a human problem, not a game dynamic problem. The game is always adjusting to keep it enjoyable for many different people. CCP will address inflation concerns some way, it just might not be the solution that suits yourself personally. The game was not meant to be more fun for someone who subscribed in 2004 than for someone who subscribed in 2012. The Incursion reward system is a firm step in the right direction

Commence trolling..

“You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. I dig.”  - Clint Eastwood, misquote.
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#71 - 2012-04-22 07:56:03 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Never let statistics get in the way of hyperbole.

Two tweets TODAY from CCP_Diagoras (John Turbefield):

14 hours ago: Roughly (from checking out the daily numbers for the last couple of weeks), 950bn per day average in bounty prize rewards.

Retweeted 13 hours ago: Feb 1st: 302bn ISK and 4.7m LP handed out as Incursion rewards.

So that means that of the roughly 1.25 trillion handed out daily by CCP in PVE bounties, approx 24% comes from Incursions.
Of course, that 950 billion in bounty payments have loot associated with it, possibly fantastic faction loot and assorted goodies from 1/10- 10/10 plexes.

In incursions, the single MOM site MIGHT spawn some BPC's, which the Incursion runners MIGHT snag before the ninja looters.

So anyone who says that Incursions are skewing the game are clearly idiots, or just meta-griefers.

You want to see some interesting numbers on just about anything stats related with Eve, follow this twitter.
I just was put on to this site today and was blown away.

http://twitter.com/ccp_diagoras

It shoots massive holes in any arguments about Incursions paying out too much, or skewing the Eve economy.
The sheer size of the Eve economy proves this:

Posted Feb 2: CCP_Diagoras John Turbefield
Total combined trade value of all market transactions in 2011: 2,692,357,631,609,430 ISK. Yes, that's 2.7 quadrillion.




that amount of bounty accounts for the WHOLE new eden while the incursion isk goes into wallet of few hundred dudes
Surge Roth
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2012-04-22 08:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Surge Roth
Brock Nelson wrote:
Are you butthurt over other people making isk?


Most people clearly are.

From what I have gathered from reading these forums is that the more isk you have, the bigger you are where it counts. Cool
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#73 - 2012-04-22 08:58:42 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
When an activity in high sec makes twice as much isk as 0.0 and lowsec we have a problem. This is why PI was changed to make low sec and 0.0 better options than just staying in high sec.


Well, let me know when "an activity in hi-sec makes twice as much isk as 0.0 and lowsec" - I'll get right on that. Incursions pay better in low/null than they do in hi-sec (so far as I know - willing to be proved wrong).

Hi-sec exploration/missions/anoms/ded complexes demonstrably do *not* pay out twice as much as null sec/low-sec equivalents.

baltec1 wrote:
High sec should never offer the same rewards as low sec and 0.0 do as people will always pick the safest option. Nerfing high sec payouts back will mean people will want to go into low sec to get the massive payouts

A) Hi sec does not have the same rewards as 0.0/low-sec. Or better.
B) People will almost *always* pick the safer option, except that 10 - 15% who have continuously chosen to live full time in 0.0 over the years - the numbers (% of players living in 0.0/low-sec) have remained relatively stable (so far as I know) since I started playing.
baltec1 wrote:
the cowardly

Roll

Srsly... "cowardly"?

Roll
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Asuri, give it up.
It is pointless to argue with these people.

I will never "give it up" as you put it, because I'm not so much defending anything, as trying (years in, still trying) to learn about the game. The forums are a part of that.

I argued against the NPC corp tax because I said it would not accomplish what it set out to accomplish, and I don't believe it did. I argued against the anom nerf, because I *KNEW* it wouldn't accomplish it's goals and it didn't. I argued against (and am still against) moving lvl 4's to low-sec because it will not accomplish it's stated goals. And overall "nerfing" isk generating activities in hi-sec in favor of moving/re-aligning the "risk/reward" ratio to null/low sec won't achieve their stated goals (imho).

Because literally, you *cannot* keep someone out of 0.0 if they want to get there. Either solo or as part of a group. When they are ready, they go.

But it seems like the same absolute % of people have been a part of the null/low/hi split for the last 4 years that I know of (with the addition of WH's taking some small % of all three).


I don't know about anyone else but I think the point if nerfing the risk/reward ratio is not to force people anywhere, it's to balance the isk/reward ratio. In that more risk means more reward. Currently it's not always the case.
Nimbat
Livets Ord.
#74 - 2012-04-22 10:17:28 UTC
This thread is now about goons! Rejoice!

Oh wait, it already is...
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#75 - 2012-04-22 10:17:37 UTC
Ah incursion threads.

Tears about other people playing the game in a way someone doesn't like.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Bel Amar
Rules of Acquisition
#76 - 2012-04-22 11:40:19 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Ah incursion threads.

Tears about other people playing the game in a way someone doesn't like.


Ah incursion threads. Over inflated sense of entitlement getting in the way of acknowledging real issues
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#77 - 2012-04-22 13:46:06 UTC
Bel Amar wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Ah incursion threads.

Tears about other people playing the game in a way someone doesn't like.


Ah incursion threads. Over inflated sense of entitlement getting in the way of acknowledging real issues


Real issues? Vanguards were overfarmed and lacked any difficulty for their reward level.

Iteration fixed it.


People crying because there's pretty ships in highsec they want to shoot but can't be bothered mustering the effort to do so if you can't kill it in a small gang of Thrashers?

Well that's just tough ****.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Shigsy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-04-22 14:12:12 UTC
Quote:
CCP_Diagoras In Jan 2012, 91.63% of Incursion payouts were in High sec, 3.31% low sec, 5.07% null sec.